User talk:Misessus

Welcome

Hello, Misessus, and welcome to Wikipedia. Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. If you are stuck, and looking for help, please come to the New contributors' help page, where experienced Wikipedians can answer any queries you have! Or, you can just type {{helpme}} and your question on this page, and someone will show up shortly to answer. Here are a few good links for newcomers:

We hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! By the way, you can sign your name on talk and vote pages using four tildes, like this: ~~~~. If you have any questions, see the help pages, add a question to the village pump or ask me on my talk page. Again, welcome! DickClarkMises (talk) 23:41, 9 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Checkuser

Misessus, I just wanted to explain and clarify that I had asked for a checkuser on your account not as a personal matter - another user with a long, storied history of sockpuppetry (including using accounts to take "opposite" views and using several at the same time) with literally dozens of accounts was being checked, and I decided to make certain this was not happening again. Your editing just happened to coincide in a few key ways with that editor's - primarily timing. It was not intended as an attack upon you, just a normal check given the extremely disruptive behaviour of that editor. As such, I hope that you will not take it personally.

I continue to disagree with you on some key issues and the degree of presentation/prominence of matters Austrian, but disagreements of that nature are normal and can be handled on the discussion pages, hopefully without rancour.--Gregalton (talk) 08:56, 19 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Advice

Hi Misessus. This is just a quick word of advice. I suggest that you don't waste too much time arguing with MainstreamEconomist. I can't say anything for certain but the fact that he has turned up out of nowhere (with no past editing history) and jumped straight into arguing with us, combined with the fact that our incumbent troll has a past history of using straw man sockpuppets to advocate views opposite from his own, makes me suspicious. I know that we disagree about a lot but I would hate to see this guy yanking your chain. --DanielRigal (talk) 16:22, 21 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Misessus, I will leave you to the mercy of Wikipedia. :-) :-) :-)

Daniel, I have only one view. It agrees with yours and part of Misessus. Kind of neutral, hey?

Daniel, although I feel your are an honest broker, you wear the blinkers of what is generally accepted and you are quite paranoid and a bit naive. You should learn with time to place more trust in the good faith of mankind and not to believe everything you read on Wikipedia as always the absolute factual truth. Remember, new discoveries are being made all the time, peer reviewed and then revealed to the general public - even here on Wikipedia, although you do not realize it. You have read it many times in the article but you cannot see the difference it makes to everything in the economy.

Daniel, not everyone is only interested in "yanking your chain" (I am not sure I even know exactly what it means) and all that jazz: some of us are actually interested in real economics and its development and will seek to take the best from every school of thought (including the Austrians) and build the future thereon. On the way we will encounter people like you too. That is generally accepted.

MainstreamEconomist (talk) 13:24, 24 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

DanielRigal, you are the troll here, are you not? Let´s be honest.

MainstreamEconomist (talk) 13:33, 24 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your comments

You wrote: Dear friend,

What in the name of all that is good and pure have you written in the preface?

Response --- That preface is copied from the cited source. Those words are not directly mine. I trusted that the source was valid -- I am repeating it here.

Check below -- I am interspersing my response within your comments see /////////

CHAPTER I

PREFACE

1. Who has the right to create money in the United States? Under the Constitution, it is the right and duty of Congress to create money. It is left entirely to Congress.

2. To whom has the Congress delegated this money creating right? To the banking system, that is, to the Federal Reserve System and to the commercial banks of the country.

3. Why is the money-creating power important? Because, by creating money, banks provide the exchange media which the economy needs to prosper and grow. Since the growth and proper functioning of the U.S. economy require increasing amounts of money over the years, those who control the amount of money exercise great power over business activity, the incomes people earn and economic strength.

4. Why was the banking system given the right to create money? The reasons are mainly historical. Still the banks do perform a service in creating money. For once the money and credit is created someone must decide whom to give the money and for what purposes. This the banks do. And bank earnings are the return for wise and proper placing of the money supply.

1. The Constitution does not allow Congress to create money./////// are you saying Patman is completely wrong? ////////The Constitution explicitely prohibits the issuance of bills of credit ///////// Please tell me exactly where that appears in the constitution ////// is a bill of credit a synonym for "money"? ////// and clearly states that the only legal tender is gold and silver. //// are legal tender and Money precisely the same thing?

2. The Federal Reserve system was founded 1913, well over a 100 years after the framing of the Constitution. To say that the Constitution authorizes Congress to create money //// " ... coin money and regulate the value thereof ...??" and that Congress has delegated that right to the Fed is completely absurd. //////// Patman did not say Congress instantly gave that right to the Federal Reserve system -- I guess they waited until 1913.

3. A growing economy does not need new money to be created. If it did, how exactly do you think the economies have grown before th existance of central banks? /// I have no idea -- did economies grow without creating new money?? -- which ones?? ????? --- Patman claims that new money is needed -- are you saying new money never has to be created //////// If the money supply remains constant and the production increases, the value of the money goes up.//// Are you saying there is never a need to create new money? I have read that theory somewhere and it made sense to me as a theory -- but I doubt that any country follows that theory //////// There is absolutely no need to create more units of money. ///// I suppose you might be right in theory -- but I do not think this has been put into practice in any major country for any length of time. Nor do I think it is practical. ////////// In fact, it is that very practice that has lead to economic downturns over and over again. ////////// Perhaps ?? ??? //////////

4. There is no history whatsoever to the supposed right to create money, given to the banks. //////// how did the Fed get the right to issue money? ////// The fractional-reserve system enables the central bank to keep up its operations. ////// I do not understand what you mean in the preceding sentence ////// I believe the fractional reserve system ( of banking) is wonderful invention that allows for virtually unlimited expansion of wealth ////// there is a lot of information on the fractional reserve system at the link I sent you /// As for the banks' profits being the return for a wise and proper placement of the money supply, just how well did the banks do during the 1920s? /////// the fact that the banks screwed up in the '20s or now /// does not negate Patman's statement -- He did not claim they would always be wise -- In fact he more or less said they were untrustworthy and that they should be replaced ///////// Or how well have they been doing now? //////// who is defending them??? -- certainly not me ///////////

Are you for real, or is this some sort of an oversized bad joke? ///// no need for sarcasm -- let's be polite??? ///// Martycarbone (talk) 08:55, 23 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Misessus (talk) 19:12, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for writing

I will check my sources and make needed corrections. I am sort of new to this and can't respond off the top of my head.

Thanks again -- I always welcome well meaning criticism.

Here is my email address -- martycarbone@yahoo.com. Perhaps corresponding by email would be easier. Martycarbone (talk) 08:04, 23 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Please check << http://www.howto-ville.com/moneykaboom.html >>

Inflation = Increase in the Money Supply = Increased Debt/Credit/Borrowing/Lending

Just a note of thanks for your words of encouragement. Before I get barred again, I thought I might clarify some of my minor edits on inflation. The terrific (pro-Austrian) article by Mike Hewitt (now in the refs) makes clear that the simple characterization of inflation being the printing of paper "fiat currency" (Weimar Republic-style) is now too-simplistic a notion for what is going on in credit markets today.

True fiat currency (printing pieces of debt-free paper currency) died off with silver certificates. We are left with money supply growth from borrowing. From debt. From the issuance of credit. That is, money comes from increases in M3 through new borrowing through fractional reserve banking techniques. That kind of money supply growth/inflation has different characteristics to the fiat/Weimar experience. Ironically, under this Ponzi-like system of money supply, inflation is happening (the currency is being debased), but at the same time people feel there is a "shortage" of money (the indebted fruitlessly run around trying to find the yet-to-be created money required to pay the INTEREST on the all the loans). This pro-Austrian piece is the best summation I've found on the paradoxical nature of the current debt-based system.

The pro-Austrian Mogambo Guru also does a nice job of explaining it here. I picture it like a mad treadmill, where people have to keep running faster and faster just to stay in the one spot. Inflation is a temporary relief in this system, and "welcomed", like a drug addict getting another hit - only for the machine to go faster when the interest on the new debt is due. Of course, von Mises described this crack-up boom as well as any scholar ever has. A great summation on the crack up boom is contained here.

So with this kind of bank-created debt money we can have "mad" inflation AND monetary "shortages" and widespread bankruptcies.

I know you're very familar with this, but I just wanted to provide detail to justify the slight additions to the Austrian school position.

Be well. - LetThemMintPaper (talk) 02:59, 1 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You are completely right, inflation today includes much more than the mere creation of new credit. The FRB-system is extremely detrimental, as it expands the injected credit many times over. I've been very pleased to see you clarify what Austrians claim is going in such detail, as my own ambition has always limited itself to the broader overview and the original definition of inflation. Even if the state has come a long way since the days of melting gold coins, the basic principle remains the same, and that is what I wanted to bring forth. I think it is fair to say that we've done a good job :)

It is very gratifying to see the Austrian view displayed on WP, and thanks to your edits it is easy for anyone to see what view makes more sense. Winning this "battle" may prove very important, as millions of people prefer looking stuff up on WP instead of reading academic litterature. Now the readers of WP get the whole story, which they desrve, despite what the self appointed cencors think.

Also, thank you for the external links. Some I have read, but others I haven't so I'm looking forward to remedy that.

Misessus (talk) 12:14, 26 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yes indeed, FRB expands the initial injection of Fed-created "out of nothing" fiat many times over (greatly compounding the "debasement" effect). It also has many other terribly destructive effects, including creating a "predatory-prey" economic culture (bully-banks doing nothing other than clipping coupons and collecting interest, while the indebted run around killing themselves to pay the interest on the loans), volatile hyperinflation in housing (banks always look to inflate housing as it is an "essential" need - shelter), extreme inequality (well-connected vs. indebted everyone else), consumerism, excess pollution through "over"-production, unsustainable economic development, and massive speculative bubbles (just to name a few). But once it starts, few people want it to (or can afford it to) stop, because, as von Mises recognized as far back as 1912, when it stops this causes mass bankruptcy and a searing depression. What Keynes euphemistically called the "paradox of thrift". Can you believe we haven't progressed substantially beyond von Mises' seminal work of 1912? It shows just how corrupted the incestuous economics "profession" has become. If anything, we have regressed. What other "science" can lay claim to that "achievement"?

And just on that second-rate plagiarizer John Maynard Keynes, can you believe the moral bankruptcy of a "man" who actively looked for ways to keep the madness going ("in the end we're all dead") rather than admitting to its real causes? Unsurprisingly he was a dear, close (loving?) friend of a certain rather prominant bwanker family. Predictably and simple-mindedly (short cuts were his forte apparently), he fell back on the obvious, "easy" short-term solution of debt-sourced government spending to keep the game of musical chairs alive. Eventually this resulted in WWII. Great "solution" to the problem of bank-created depressions, non?

Read Rothbard's devastating critique of that shallow hedonistic shadow of Silvio Gesell, and I'm sure you'd agree he was one of the most destructive "intellectuals" of the 20th century. I cannot contain my contempt for what his poorly plagiarized ideas have wrought. Not when we are looking at the worst economic crisis since the Great Depression. To think these kinds of basic economic errors are still being made in the "high-tech" 21st century! Thank God I was kicked out of academia for being too "radical". I would hate to feel responsible for the mess we are now in. - LetThemMintPaper (talk) 02:59, 1 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Misessus, i'm currently a first year bachelor of commerce student at Sydney university, and this semester i'm studying macroeconomics, you know keynesian theory (which has alot of "exceptions") and so on. I wanted to get a better grasp of inflation and thought i'd check out wikipedia, i've been reading the article (and subsequent talkpage/edits due to the bias dispute) for the last hour or so. I'm really fascinated, I had NO idea there was so many differnt schools of thought! (so fascinated I even signed up to wikipedia to get involved). I really want to know, what are your views on inflation targets, in terms of the Austrian school of economics, compared to main stream economics? AND importantly, how does the Austrian school take into account (for inflation) things like the rise in global food prices and oil prices? I'd like to see an alternative view (and understand it).

Guan Tai Wai (talk) 23:57, 18 September 2008 (UTC) Guan Tai Wai[reply]

I don't know whether Misessus is still alive (Austrians tend to be targeted for "culling" by the mainstreamers if they get too numerous on WP). Before I get barred again, I'd like to add my 2 gold coins to the issue. Inflation targets are a sham, a joke, an intellectual embarrassment. First, go to Antal E. Fekete's website. Read all his articles, but pay particularly close attention to this one. It is gold on inflation targeting. He is brilliant in how he cuts down this politically convenient but absurd Friedmanite sham. He argues that inflation targeting is nothing more than an attempt by governments and banks to steal quietly. It's still theft in his eyes. In a modern economy, there should be massive DEFLATION, which is good for everyone except the bankers. Bankers cannot stand deflation and are afraid of it like a vampire is afraid of the light. The heart of their "business" is threatened by deflation. But deflation raises real wages. That is what the fight is all about. If you're interested you MUST meet Fekete in Canberra later this year. Your eyes will be opened to a whole new world. - MakTheKnife (talk) 08:08, 20 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

3 revert rule

And what would be the purpose of contesting the block? Read the talk page on the inflation article, for heaven's sake. I've given hundreds if not thousands of reasons for the edits. Not to mention that people like Gregalton and his sockpuppets are doing the exact same thing, reverting everything I do. Do they get blocked? Hell no.

Thank your for revealing what WP economics project is all about. A forum in which the political views of the editors are promoted and all contesting vies cencored.

So much for the free encyclopedia.

All of you have constantly complained about the Austrian school getting "undue weight". How that is even possible is beyond me, but it is pure and simple base cencorship. You have also stated that certain views must and shall be promoted at the expense of others. What is that, but pure and simple base propaganda. Every single bit of Austrian text had been substantially sourced, much more than any mainstream passage, and still you delete it stating "unverified claims" as the reason.

Now, as this is my own page, I'll ask you to stay the hell away. It is quite enough that the likes of you corrupt important articles on WP. You will not pollute my own talk page.

It's Starting Again

Be careful from here on. It's going to get ugly. They've blocked me again. I don't see much hope for us. - $laveryWorldwideInc (talk) 04:44, 7 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Do you agree with my comments on LK's page? I hope so :-) - 165.228.245.66 (talk) 05:51, 17 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

September 2008

Hello Misessus. User:Lawrencekhoo has filed a complaint about your editing of Inflation at WP:AN/3RR. Though you have not reverted four times in 24 hours, it looks like you are persistently restoring a point of view that doesn't yet have consensus support on the Talk page.

The Talk page is not yet a model of consensus-building, but you might be able to help to improve it. It seems that you already have some knowledge of the subject.

Per WP:EW a revert war to get your preferred version into the article is a violation, so I'm hoping you will search for compromise with the other editors. Since you were blocked for edit warring as recently as 6 September, you do not have a lot of leeway here. Looking forward to more careful editing in the future. Thanks, EdJohnston (talk) 02:33, 13 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Henry Hazlitt's "One lesson"

Misessus,

I read Henry Hazlitt's "One lesson" several years ago, and it is indeed an excellently written book, illuminating many salient points. I use it sometimes in the classes I teach. However, economic understanding has moved on from what was known 60 years ago.

I would like to extend an olive branch to you and explain a few things that you might not understand.

Even the most cursory look at our edit histories will show that the many editors who do not agree with you are independent people with different interests, and are not socks. However, we are united in wanting economics articles reflect standard textbook economics.

Economics is hard. Trying to use verbal arguments to do it, is like trying to use geometrical proofs (like Newton used) to do modern particle physics. As an example, consider the question of the pricing of a stock option, or the calculation of deadweight loss from Monopoly pricing.

Austrian economists are largely ignored by the mainstream. You can do a BA in economics in most schools without hearing about them, and even at the graduate level, you only hear about them in History of Economics classes.

Austrian economists are ignored not because they are censored, or despised for political reasons (Right-wing Chicago school economists receive accolades beyond their relative numbers), but rather because their arguments don't convince us. While academic economists make verbal arguments, that is just the tip of the iceberg. All the deep issues are fought over using complex algebraical models and painstaking statistical studies that are impenetrable to the layman, but which are nonetheless convincing and comprehensible to the trained economist.

Most of the people in the econ wikiproject don't mind a bit of mention of the Austrian school, here and there. However, we believe that readers should see a treatment of economic subjects similar to what would be acceptable in a university-level text book, in line with WP:UNDUE and WP:NPV.

lk (talk) 09:41, 13 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

LK

I'm sorry, but you're hardly the one to teach me about economics. And as far as the science goes, its all but been destroyed by the political trappings and scientifications by the mainstreamers. People like Fisher, Keynes and Samuelson have done what I fear to be irreparable damage.

I couldn't care less what editors like you, JQ, Gregalton think, its obvious you have your own agenda and have no other interest in WP's economics project than to promote your own favourites and block everyone else. If anything has become clear during the last 10 years, it is exactly that the mainstream, textbook vies must be challenged, and what better way is there than to utilize the world wide web?

Pricing has nothing to do with economics, that's entrepreurship. Mainstreamers often confuse the two. Another thing they get mixed up, is that you can't use natural science methodology on a social science. Austrians use logical deduction, which is how you must deal with social sciences, especially economics, as it is subjective, not objective. And tell me this: howcome no mainstreamer have ever been able to offer a satisfactory explantation to the same economic problems that keep recurring again and again and again? Today's credit crunch took most of the profession completely of guard. Columnists are screaming "Where are the economists!?". And they're right in doing so, because most have gone underground and disappeared, not knowing what to do. Except the Austrians, they saw this coming a long time ago. And as for time, the economic laws are equally applicable today as they were thousands of years ago. They don't change just because mainstreamers start to redefine economic terms.

Yes, the mainstreamers surely ignore the Austrians, as they ignore the incredible devastation their policies lead to. Nothing new there.

Chicago shool economists have been intimate with the political class for decades and are as mainstream as keynesianism and neoclassisism. Their view is also very state friendly, so of course they are on good terms with the powers that be. Your proclamations of painstaking statistical studies and algebraic modelling is complete nonsense. I repeat my question: howcome none of the economists who believe in that mush 1) never have seen any of the crises during the past 100 years coming (Fisher case in point) and 2) never have been able to explain why it happened?

Can you answer that?

So you can chum up with your buddies in your rediculous WP econ project as much as you want. I'm going to make sure the readers get a glimpse of real economics, not just the humbug and propaganda taught to us by the universties, echoed by the media and implemented by the state.

Misessus (talk) 15:41, 13 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

3RR applies to User talk pages as well

Stop reverting the removal of your comments on my user talk page. If you revert again you will break WP:3RR. Also, don't leave me any more messages on my talk page. I have no interest in talking to you as you cannot conduct a civil conversation. lk (talk) 16:06, 14 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Says the person who first equates Austrianism with witchcraft, then claims Alan Greenspan was an Austrian-sympathetic and who finally deletes a response which does nothing but points out his answers were wrong.

You really have no sense of self awareness, do you? Hardly surprising, people like you usually start to make things up in order to escape a debate they know they'll lose.

Misessus (talk) 21:19, 15 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Austrian wars

Hello Misessus. You may have some knowledge of Austrian economics that could be helpful to some of our economics articles. I closed a recent 3RR complaint with no action except for a warning to you, but the ferocity of the views expressed in that debate by both sides suggest that this issue won't go away quietly. Note there is a new discussion at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Economics#Input requested regarding Austrian School that might benefit from your participation. So far the discussion seems very temperate, and I've no doubt that if you were to invite compromise there on any of the outstanding issues it would be well received. Austrian economics doesn't give the final answer to everything, but it deserves balanced coverage in Wikipedia. EdJohnston (talk) 22:06, 14 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Ed,

I browsed through the discussion you linked to and sadly I didn't see much difference from any other discussion, eithere here on WP or elsewhere. The fact is that mainstreamers, like most editors here, simply don't know anything about Austrian economics, nor are they interested in knowing. They've never given any other argument than the "fringe"-arguement, that the Austrian view gets undue weight and then thrown up a bunch of WP-rules.

The edits I've made have been thoroughly sourced and completely neutral, which is why no one has been able to give any real reson to remove them. In all honesty, I never could imagine such hostility when I started to add the Austrian view to the inflation article. Evidently, I had an utterly false understanding of WP when I signed up. I thought all contributions would be welcomed. I guess I should have known better.

Be that as it may. I will keep editing the inflation article as I have been doing up untill now. If an administrator wants to shut me down for doing so, go right ahead.

Misessus (talk) 21:32, 15 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I suggest caution because that kind of a statement suggests a willingness to edit-war. It's possible that you have important information that is not yet reflected in our economics articles. The best way to ensure that your information is received and accepted is to make cogent arguments on Talk pages in a temperate manner. Since you came close to a citation for edit-warring last time around, you may not have much slack if you charge back into the fray with no change in your approach. All this assumes that you have good sources to offer, which I have not yet noticed. EdJohnston (talk) 21:50, 15 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It has become quite clear that mainstreamers can do exactly whatever they want, whereas others cannot. The term "edit-war" applies selectively. Ban me if you like. As for the sources, I suggest you read for yourself. Most of the sources I've used are externally linked. Whatever knowledge I have is clearly not wanted on WP, as it seems to favour the propaganda of the political class.

Misessus (talk) 22:06, 15 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Why can't you go improve an article on an Austrian economist? That would help people take you more seriously. If you just go back and edit-war on Inflation your days on Wikipedia might be numbered. (I make no brief for the current defenders of that page, I know little about its recent history). I won't 'read for myself,' it's up to people who want to add information to provide reliable sources. It's called *work*, many of our contributors are willing to do it, regardless of their economic persuasion. EdJohnston (talk) 22:39, 15 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Just to be clear. I've stated many times over that every contribution I've made has been thoroughly sourced. You said you hadn't noticed those sources. Then, when I told you to see for yourself, you responded that you won't do that. You'll have to excuse me, but that makes me a bit confused.

As said, looking through the list of sources on the inflation article, you'll see that well over a third of the listed sources are in support of Austrian texts. This means that the Austrian texts are, in relative terms, much more sourced than any other. And you mean to suggest I haven't done the "work many of our contributors are willing to do"? I've done much more than "most of your contributors", which you would know, had you bothered to actually look through the article.

So I have to ask this: As an administrator, how do you justify the statement "I won't read for myself"? Isn't that what an administrator is supposed to do, especially when he time and time again makes overt threats of imminent ban?

As for your original question. I will not allow WP to dump the Austrian School in some obsucure, hidden subcategory in no man's land. The Austrian School is the oldest continual school of economic thought and the only school that isn't entwined with politics. Its economists hold professor positions in several accreditet universities and are authors of best selling books. The Mises Institute celebrated its 25th anniversary this year and has enjoyed a steady growth, most especially the Mises University.

There has been absolutely no basis for any of the deletions of Austrian text from the inflation article, none what so ever. Even should all my edits be left in place, the keynesian view is till front and centre. And there's another thing, if the Austrian view should be confined to articles on Austrianism, why shouldn't that princple apply to Keynesianism and monetarism as well?

Misessus (talk) 08:12, 16 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]